Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
Actually, in the USA, copyright law permits one copy for archival under fair use. If the original copy of the book is destroyed, then it becomes a medium shift and is also legal.
|
Personally, I see nothing wrong with scanning a book for a personal backup. I just thought the explicit admonition from the publisher on the pub-data page - usually along the lines of
"No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher." - would make book-scanning a gross breach of contract. Seeing as I've been chastised endlessly in the past for "going against the seller's terms" by breaking DRM, this seems a trifle ... inconsistent.
As far as copyright law is concerned, I've perused it quite a bit recently, and I find no exemptions such as the one you noted (a citation of some kind would be nice - I'm deeply interested in this issue and the distinction between ebooks and pbooks in this regard fascinates me.
Here's a link to the Title 17 laws for convenience).
To the best of my knowledge,
the one archival copy rule was explicitly reserved for computer programs, not books. Ironically, ebooks might be considered to fall under this "backup" provision but not paper books (I know - it's stupid. I don't write the laws
).
There was some latitude granted, (
but only to libraries and archival institutions, not individuals), for making
one copy for archival purposes:
Quote:
|
Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section ...
|
In fact, in the fair use sections (
#107 specifically), the last two factors of the "four-factor test for fair use" would seem to frown upon book-scans.
Quote:
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
|
(#3 is obvious and #4 becomes relevant if ebook versions of the pbook already exist in the market).
Again, morally, I don't see any problem with scanning a book for personal use. Just saying that
legally speaking (as evidenced by the intense litigation against Google - though I agree that's more contentious and somewhat different since distribution comes into play), book-scanning (even for personal use) appears to be one of those unenforceable, yet illegal activities (like breaking DRM); unless of course there
is a personal archival copy exemption in the laws that I just couldn't find (I eagerly await your response - it's quite possible I missed it somewhere).
To summarize:
Breaking DRM: illegal under DMCA; goes against seller's terms (but only for Amazon - B&N doesn't have any such terms in the book or in any other place)
Scanning entire books: illegal under copyright act; definitely goes against seller's terms (included in nearly every book, even for books out of copyright - why buy the book if one doesn't agree with the terms?)
Both: morally fine, assuming no distribution. Is that an accurate summary?